- In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument.
The court system is better suited to protect individuals than the elected branches of government are because they focus more on protecting individual’s rights for example it is fine for someone being questioned by an officer to remain silent because it is a right they have while on the other hand An example the article stated was when someone commits a criminal act, the government (state or national, depending on which law has been broken) charges that person with a crime such as the Miranda v. Arizona case which included both of these examples. Each person has more than just one court system ready to protect his or her rights which is beneficial for them.
2. Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic PLACES IN OUR GOVERNMENT. Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts? (HINT: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10”, and which social class plays a leading role in our government system.)
I definitely believe that the supreme court is an anti-democratic part of the government and a reason for this and choosing the judges in federal courts has to do with the wealthy class and people who own property and businesses. I believe that they are so focused on what benefits them and how they can maintain or get richer which has to do with why they don’t agree with many choices that democrats make.
